-
bcnet19 comisiones input14
last modified January 29, 2020 by facilitfsm
- Directories @1
- Navigation towards decidim @2 @4 @15
- Representation who can edit organizations? Who can announce activities and iniatives @3 @9
- self tagging of activities @5
- online participatin in activities - inclusiveness from below @6
- autodocumentation of activities @7
- co promoters entities of an initiative @8
- existing and new initiatives @10 geographical area for initiative @11
- description of action dates in initiative form @12
- expectation from the group promoting an iniative - @13 info on how to join @14
- ways of promoting initiatives @16
Dear Jason and all -
- i comment in brown jason inputs in blue more written inputs welcome with a color
- i do think that a verbal meeting remains relevant in the coming days to review those points
- Also i have created a tab "minimum addition proposal" in the spreadsheet document, where these fields are in the process of being commented with the text that is below in brown https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nFXeb7Q-kRTuRNdwD0x16kdLc4s9AybZSjclVv7VdKU/edit?usp=sharing
We need to strike a balance between a whole lot of information that we would like to collect from people and what we can actually expect to get - with the shorter and simpler form possible
- Here i would like to make a strong point- the concern is not to "extract data from people with no return ", the concern is to give useful information to wsfte participants in the context of a process which is going at least a few months beyond the event - and where participants have possibility
- 1/ to access certain data from others under the form of DIRECTORIES
- 2/ to UPDATE the forms they have created
- am struck by the fact that there is no description of those civicrm directories sketching how they will appear to wsfte participants . it is as if they are not existing see D10 directorios
- A very important technical issue is the display of links in the directory i-e if i describe an activity i propose, and in this description i insert a http://xxxxxxxxxxx text , then in the ctivicrm directory display, this should be recognized as a link and become a clickable link in the display by other wsfte particpants
Therefore, thanks for this last message, which makes it much easier to answer and deal with the issues you raise.Jason comment in blue: Pierre commenting in brown
A16- D16 for individual form tab
A16 D16 your Account username in decidim) BASIC WSFTE USER FRIENDLINESS CIVICRM<>DECIDIM
We cannot add an account name for decidim, though I understand your concern.
- It is not "us" who are adding this account name ( it would be done when updating the personal form and certainly not on the first time he would register , it would be the participant themselves later as they understand that this is probably the only way a connection can be made visible to other wsfte participants between their civicrm and decicim user names -
- I have mentionned repeatedly the issue of what will the various civicrm public DIRECTORIES look like and which information they will provide
- it is high time there is an explicit description of what is expected from the civicrm team in this regard although it seems nearly nothing has been described so far - public directories with relevant info is a fundamental feature of social forum
- You can see the montreal participant directory here with your public profile :-) : https://fsm2016.org/es/participants/jnardi/profile/ NOW IMAGINE there is in this display a field with a LINK that allows others to navigate in one click to your decidim profile -
We will try to work on a SSO (single sign on) - but not sure it will be possible. i in the current context there seem to be little probabilty that this will happen, hence this simple proposal of adding a user edtitable field
3
Clarification for D33 fields in organization form tabWHO CAN EDIT ORGANIZATIONS?
WHO CAN ANNOUNCE ACTIVITIES AND INITIATIVES?
iIT IS NOT CLEAR whether the two names indicated in F45 and F46 in the tab organization
1/ are able, according to civicrm, to edit the organization description
2/ are able, according to civicrm registration, to declare an activity or initiative in the name of this organization -
Field A33-D33 " Who are the users authorized to coedit this organization " is proposing to list "declared representatives" of the organization adding to the implicit "tecnical representative which is the person creating the organization description - THIS ISSUE OF WHO IS CONSIDERED REPRESENTATIVE OF AN ORGANIZATION BY CIVICRM NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED These notions or organization representatives and activty and initaitive responsible are explicited in the D11 lexico )-
NOTE field " other organizations you work with has been cancelled - if we put a limit up to three other organizations you work with that creates a mesh of links allowing to navigate in the Organization directory and in the organisations map
4
D13 D17 D19 D20 for activity from tab
A13 - D13 -Uso foro Online en relación con esta actividad( max 400 signas 5 líneas) : "Explicar si y como piensan utilizar el foro online para entrar en contacto con participantes FSMET en relacion a ella INDICATE THE LINK TO THE ONLINE SPACE IF YOU HAVE STARTED IT
BASIC WSFTE USER FRIENDLINESS CIVICRM<>DECIDIM ONLINE FORUM
We are going to invite people to open processes in the virtual forum on the activity - but don't need them to explain why they would do it
- Again here the main info is not expressing an intention i agree this is not very useful ( although it is a relevant info for the virtual forum commisison to know who is interested) THE MAIN USAGE FOR THIS FIELD is the activity representatives coming later to update this field and INSERT A DECIDIM LINK to the online/virtual forum space associated to this activity once they have created it with help of the online forum commisison -
- THE RESULT FROM THIS FIELD IS THAT THE ACTIVITY DIRECTORY IS INCLUDING A LIST OF ASSOCIATED ONLINE FORUM SPACES IF ANY and it is a reference for navigation
5
A17 - D17 -Categorizar la actividad según las 3 dimensiones temática - retos - necesidades- momentos en el evento
NICE TO HAVE SELF TAGGING STANDARD SOCIAL FORUM FEATURE
Tthe program structure is still not defined and those perspectives could be organised differently or changed. It's up to the content commission, once the program is better defined, to categorize better when / where to put the activity
- Self location in tags list is usually proposed in social forum - the task of the content commisison is more to establish a relevant list of tags then decide the categorization of the activity - there are several type of categorizations that have been mentionned - the moment - the thematic - the challenges ( remember barcelona april ) the population necessities (advocated by some in april -is there any list ?) and i would add - the fact that the activity is focusing on certain initaitives or not ( which can be deducted from the field E12)
- i understand discusion is open and not finalized - but i think the issue of SELF LOCALIZATION in several content DIMENSIONS is a relevant one
6
A19- D19 -Apertura de la actividad a participación en línea (max 400 signas= 5 líneas ) : favor explicar si y cómo ustedes se organizaran sin apoyo del comité organizador para acoger la participación en línea de personas que no se encuentren físicamente en la sala) (esto
NICE TO HAVE SHOWING WSFTE EVENT IS INCLUSIVE FROM BELOW TO THOSE NOT TRAVELING
You are right, a reference to online interaction is missing. But I would word it differently: "Blended activity: are you planning online interaction during the activity (streaming, video/audio meeting, use of social media, etc.)?"
- if we agree on the relevance of this field that a good step - the wording can be found / again here inserting links to jitsi meeting to facebook video etc should be possible
A20 - D20 Documentación de la actividad donde y como a (max 400 signas= 5 líneas ) -
NICE TO HAVE SHOWING THERE IS A POST EVENT PERIOD THAT IS PLANNED AS OF NOW( OPTIONAL FIELD)
this is still to be discussed, but I think the Forum should propose / offer a common way to document and report the results of the activity. In any case, during the registration I do not think it is relevant.
- Two argument explaining why i disagree
- 1/ these are self organized activities and the WSFTE facilitation team ( see the meaning of this word i wsfte lexicon here :-) D11 lexico ) is stimulating self documentation but is NOT substituting the actors politically responsible for documentation who are the activity organizers -
- 2/ kindly consider that these activity description form is not a ONE SHOT creation " register and forget" - These form reflect the dynamics of the process and can be edited by the people responsible for the activity (and who are considered by civicrm as entitled to edit the form after creation ( open issue here)
- These updates are for instance for reflecting the effect of wsfte process on the activity -including new organization involved - new contact people -, new elements of description, - new initaiives to be discussed and after the event the field docmentation will be particularly used -
- Some fields of the form could be frozen at a certain moment (- or a copy made by the facilitation team to craft the program but the ACTIVITY DIRECTORY is basically a living agregate of living documents
NOTE there is mention of a distinction which IS NOT CLARIFIED SO FAR IN ANY FIELD between "concrete actvitities and open space activities"- I would word it
- activities with a clear group of logistically and poltically responsible entities and
- activities with a group of logistically responsaible entities that is meant as an open space - or a session of a convergence space already existing
D12 D13 D14 D20 D21 D22 D29 D31 for initiatives from tab
8
A12- D12 Entidades CO promotoras :(máx. 400 signas= 5 líneas) Cuáles organizaciones grupos inscritos co-promueven esta iniciativa? (hay una de las organizaciones de la persona que describe la iniciativa, más el seleccionar organizaciones en la lista, o mencionarla por texto si no la encuentran-
FUNDAMENTAL
ok, this was mistakenly taken out ("Organisation(s) promoting the initiative")
- OK AND THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL POINT initiatives are not organizations they are presented in the name of a group of organizations- it is important to understand the reason for this "mistake" -
9
D13 Personas responsables de la iniciativa en fsmet ( max 200 signas 2 lineas) a escoger entre participantes-
PRAGMATIC SAME TREATMENT OF CONTACT PERSONS FOR ACTIVITIES AND FOR INITIATIVES
there is already a "public contact" for the initiative (plus the user who created it)
- There is a "public contact person " field in the activity form ( which requires clarification about how this "public contact" is considered by civicrm see the civicrm representativenes question raised in several part of that message)
- There should be a similar field in the initiative form, while so far THERE IS NOT UNLESS I AM MISTAKEN
- see the notion of "tecnical representative" and "declared representative" for organization through A32-D32 activity and the notion of "tecnical responsible" and "declared responsible" ( through A13-D13 initiative) These notions are explicited in the D11 lexico )-
- My pessimistic assumption is that for the time being we have a very technically centralized scheme in civicrm
- Only those having created an organizatin are considered representative and consequently only those having declared an organization are entitled to propose activity and initiative -
- The only reasonnable way to broaden this population would be to have fields in the organization , activity and initiative form where to declare other represenative in the organition form and declare other responsible in the actifvity and initiative form
- There could be, as for activities, a civicrm "built in" limit that an organization cannot be "tecnical responsible" for more then 2 or 3 activities or initiatives
10
D14 Progreso actual de la iniciativa (existente o proyectada),-
BASIC DISTINCTION BETWEEN EXISTING INITIATIVES AND THOSE STARTED IN THE EVENT
this can be part of the description, we are not collecting analytic information on each initiative (can be done by other mappings)
- well this is a significant pragmatic concrete field very simple radio button existing / projected
- if the initiative is "existing" there is a past and present and future
- if the initiative is "projected on occasion of wsfte" there is no past and it is all expectation For instance : there is a strategic agenda initiative which is projected and will hopefully take concrete shape on occasion of the event in barcelona
D20 -Área(s) geográfica(s) de desarrollo de la iniciativa, (máx. 200 signas= 2 líneas) RELEVANT: NOTION OF GEOGRAPHICAL AREA FOR AN INITIATIVE
"scale" corresponds to "scope"
- yes this notion of scale of initiative is the only inclusion from the suggestion so far but in the initiative mapping fields there is NOT the notion of area -
- as an example the mapping can present an "international scale" initiative located somewhere in Florence with longitude latitude, but there is no field to dscribe the geographical area where it is active eg " so far italy and spain developing in senegal " or something like this
12
D21 -Resumen fechas acciones de la iniciativa para el calendario FSMET - Por lo menos 1 fecha de acción pública durante o posterior al evento FSMET y 3 fechas acciones max) más tarde se llenara el DETALLE DE LA FECHA ACCIÓN
FUNDAMENTAL : LINK BETWEEN INITIATIVES AND ACTION DATES > WSFTE INITIATIVES CALENDAR as a distinguishable part of WSFTE self managed calendar - linking BOTH WAYS "civicrm initiative directory" and "wsfte calendar"
confusion between "initiative" and "event". The calendar is a separate thing (that can have a link to an existing initiative - but the opposite is not automatic - i.e. it will not automatically create an event)
- THIS NOT A CONFUSION :-) THIS THE A KEY POINT the underlying vision is that 1/ an initiative without public action date is unaccountable 2/ simple declarations on occasion of wsfte can be considered very simple initiatives with one action date "public declaration" on wsfte barcelona dates -
- So the practical consequence is that all public results in wsfte can take the form of an initiative and be colected in the WSFTE INITIATIVE CALENDAR, which CAN BE A DISTINCT PART OF the WSFTE SELF MANAGED CALENDAR jason and david are referring to
- And it is FUNDAMENTAL to ask the initiative promoters to give 1 to 3 public action dates, in field D21
- ( with the clear communication from WSFTE faciltating group /understanding by wsfte participants that these action dates will be reflected in a specific content of the wsfte calendar " initiative calendar"),
- This initiative calendar can be filtered /presented as such, INSIDE THE GENERAL SELF MANAGED WSFTE CALENDAR and edited by the initiative promoters themselves with accompaniment from content commission, based on the updated collection of D21 field for each initiative - see the text here
- it would look like this more or less which has been implemented in Montreal WSF https://fsm2016.org/es/actions/ -
- SO BEHIND THIS D21 FIELD is a manual interactive protocol from content commission in inter-initiative space in contact with initiative promotros to care about initiatives ( which will be discussed on january 23rd in content commission) -
- The result of this protocol in the end is generate an updated description of the initiative - with extra fields of description of action date ( see the fields A24 to A28 in initiative tab) that will be made visible under the form of a calendar as has been done in montreal https://fsm2016.org/es/actions/ -
- This wsfte iniative calendar is a document with a high enough level of quality - and based on the D21 field
- It is the result of an interactive relation between content commision and initiative promoters which is structured around - getting update of this D21 field - clarifying action related information that will appear in wsfte initiative calendar
- It is generated and updated for some months after the wsfte event ( which raises the issue of continuity of a minimal Technical team after the event, or a volunteering grou)
- NOTE with a little bit of training and info of the initiative promoters by the content commission, the D21 field as a free text field can contain in free text format all the elements of A24 to A28 and be a clear unambiguous basis for generating the wsfte initiative calendar
- in the end it can receive a link to the actiondates generated by the iniciative promotion group in the calendar website SO THERE IS A LINKAGE BOTH SIDES BETWEEN INITIATIVE FORM IN CIVICRM AND THE CALENDAR TOOL
Se entiende mejor la relevancia de este punto 12 leyendo este texto " como acompanamos a los grupos promotores de iniciativas"
http://openfsm.net/projects/bcnet19/bcnet19-comisiones-input15 - tambien visible en
D21 field in civicrm form can receive links to dates of self managed calendar and self managed calendar action dates description can receive link to the corresponding initiative visible in initiative directory of wsfte : linking both ways
13
D22 -Como grupo promotor, en torno a esta iniciativa: qué quieren lograr en FSMET (máx. 800 signas= 10 líneas) //Qué tipo de fortalecimiento apoyo PARA / DESDE su iniciativa espera obtener de/ aportar a otros participantes / iniciativas // // Cómo podría articularse esta iniciativa con otras iniciativas y cuáles?
RELEVANT EXPRESSION OF EXPECTATIONS ABOUT WSFTE EVENT BY INITIATIVE PROMOTERS
As you've pointed out, the initiative is an action, not an actor nor an activity in the forum (though it can be presented through an activity). So why ask what they want to obtain? This is more relevant for an activity.
- let me qualify : this is about WHAT the promoters of an initiatve expect to get from their participation in wsfte for the strenghthening and articulation of their initiative ( for this they have several means : the virtual online forum - the inter initiative space - and specific activities designed to focus at least partially on specific iniativies (activity is one mean among other possible) Como grupo promotor, en torno a esta iniciativa: qué quieren lograr en FSMET (máx. 800 signas= 10 líneas) //Qué tipo de fortalecimiento apoyo PARA / DESDE su iniciativa espera obtener de/ aportar a otros participantes / iniciativas // // Cómo podría articularse esta iniciativa con otras iniciativas y cuáles?
14
D29 - Sumarse a la iniciativa ? : cómo está organizado su grupo promotor de la iniciativa y cómo podría incluir a otras organizaciones en él :(max 400 signas= 5 líneas)
RELEVANT INFO FOR WSFTE PARTICIPANTS INTERESTED IN AN INITIATIVE
Do you really want to ask if the initiative is self-referential or closed ?
- well it is not a YES NO question it is a HOW question for other participants browsing the initIative directory? it is probably useful to have info about "what are the criteria and protocols" for getting included in the promoting group of a particular initiative
15
D31 Uso del Espacio foro en línea hasta el evento FSMET y después (máx. 400 signas= 5 líneas): usar el foro on line para promover esta iniciativa creación de espacio o yendo a interactuar en espacios existentes, las dos cosas , INSERIR EL LINK HASTA EL ESPACIO ONLINE SI EXISTE etc.. -
BASIC WSFTE USER FRIENDLINESS CIVICRM<>DECIDIM ONLINE FORUM
not necessary. At the end of the activity and initiatives form (or in the registration email they will receive) there will be an invitation and instructions on the virtual/online forum to promote and discuss.
- Again here the main info is not expressing an intention i agree this is not very useful ( although it is a relevant info for the virtual forum commisison to know who is interested) THE MAIN USAGE FOR THIS FIELD is the initaitive representatives coming later to update this field and INSERT A DECIDIM LINK to the online/virtual forum space associated to this initiative once they have created it with help of the onlin forum commisison -
- THE RESULT FROM THIS FIELD IS THAT THE INITIATIVE DIRECTORY IS INCLUDING A LIST OF ASSOCIATED ONLINE FORUM SPACES IF ANY and it is a reference for navigation THIS IS VERY USEFUL INFO TO PARTICIPANTS
This is from my point of view, of course.
- I have tried to give arguments on mine
16
Just one last comment:You say: " initiatives linked to the forum" (and on those that are not ) - the initiatives that would be registered in answer to the "general invitation to participate in wsfte" are essentially linked to the forum : their promoters want to use the wsfte process to make those initiatives visible and strengthen and articulate them, - if someone wants to register an initiative just for making it visible in the mapping and do nothing about it in wsfte it is possible, althought not very sensible
IMPORTANCE OF INTER INITIATIVE SPACE AND UPDATE OF INITIATIVE FORM
I say: if the promoter(s) of an initiative want to make it visible and articulate with others... they propose an activity or go in a convergence space and present it (online or at the event).
- Well this notion of "inItiaitive linked to the forum" is a Kevin formulation - it is not mine
- i am just considering in priority initiative promoting group that come to wsfte with expectation that they express in D22 They have several means at their disposal for promoting their initiative, which are
- the inter -initiative space online ( which can be on line based on the initiative directory in civicrm)
- the inter -initiative physical open space in barcelona ( cared about by content commisison)
- the online forum spaces (
- and the activities during the event in barcelona (activities that the initaitive promoter organize or activities oganized by others where it is indcated that the iniative will be discussed ( see field in the activity form) with this distinction which IS NOT CLARIFIED SO FAR between "concreteactvitities and open space activities"-
- AND OF COURSE UPDATING THEIR INITIATIVE DESCRIPTION including the D13 D21 fields for reflecting the evolutions of their initiative throughout the dialogues and interactions in wsfte along those three channels means
Finally, we should be testing starting from next week -- so all of us are invited to do so and give feedback.
- Also the directory format of individuals organizations activities y and initiatives directory should be part of the testing !!
ciao, Jason